Help Forum

in order to prevent certain people from moving at the limit of the TO can you somehow
estrict them from starting new games until their tournament games are complete. There are quite a few of this type of offenders here and it is EXTREMELY unfair to everybody in the same tournament with them. Without naming names there is one player who had about 100 games when the tournament started, as time went on their moves became slower and slower while their game load increased. These games were started BEFORE the timebank went into effect and to be honest, I do not wish to play until 2007and neither should the tournament round have to be delayed because of a time abuser. If you would like the players name, PM me and i have no problem giving it/them to you.

This is absolute nonsense. Playing within the TO rules set at the start of a tournament cannot be interpreted as unfair at all. Adding more entry level restrictions like these would be unfair.

The problem of tournaments dragging on (and I know what I am talking about - watch the original long haul tournament) was built in at the start, and no single player can be blamed for that. TO systems and tournament setups are the way to deal with that.

I find it more annoying at the individual level, but still avoid to use the word 'unfair', when a 1800+ player keeps on playing one move every 14 days in a totally lost position. Watch the game 269066 (please no comments on the game since it is ongoing). I expect this game to end with checkmate in about four months. But we should not ask Russ to do something about this. Technically, there is nothing to complain about, how much I may dislike the situation.

Originally posted by sintubinThis is absolute nonsense. Playing within the TO rules set at the start of a tournament cannot be interpreted as unfair at all. Adding more entry level restrictions like these would be unfair.

I agree,

That's the reason why timebank has been introduced. You can make suggestions to improve the timeout system or you can ask for more 1 day TO 2 weeks TB - Tournaments but you can't call those players unfair.

It is unfair to every player in the tournament when one player decides to take 14 days per move so they can increase their gameload to OVER 200. That is absolutely unfair, unsportsmanlike (unsportswomanlike) and plain foolish. Now it appears there have been resignations due to this.

It might be a programming nightmare, but I would like to see the points leader in the group go green as soon as it is mathematically impossible for the others in the group to win or tie. I know I’ve seen some tournaments that still have people playing with no chance of going to the second round. It's not a cure but it might help speed things up some!

I tend to agree with Feivel in that while its not against the rules to make yourself the reason why a few hundred people have to wait for a half a year for the next round in a tournament, it is very inconsiderate. To start new games when all the while holding back a tournament by taking the maximum time per move in a game does seem almost like purposeful mischief. Continuing to play on at this snail pace even after the game is clearly lost IS purposeful mischief.

I think that there's little to be done with large tournaments that have already started before the timebanks; there are some there that will invariably take years to finish. But the timebank feature looks like a promissing solution to the problem; short (or non-existant) timeouts along with large timebanks would mean that the duration of a tournament would be manageable.

I am quite warming to Aarons idea, and then once group has a 'green' player the next round can start sooner, but of course let the non-progessors of the tournament still playout there matches (if they want to). It would definitely save have to wait for every match to finish especially when its mathematically impossible for those in question to progress.

Sintubin is absolutely right. The TO limits set at the beginning of the tournament are the rules! Timebanks are a better solution but for the older tournaments how fair do you think it is to change the rules half way through? Let the rules stand and don't join the tournament if you don't like them.

When a tournament starts and you have 90 games (where you move ery 3-4 days) and you then start another 100= games so your move frequency becomes every 7-14 days, there is a serious lack of respect and sportsmanship toward EVERYBODY in the tournament. Something should correct this. The timebank prevents this from happening in the future (and I suspect also prevents certain parties from entering tournaments...not to mention that there probably is some relation to Dantes hissy fit and departure) still something should be done to rectify the current situation. A quick check (by software) can be made BEFORE any challenges are accepted or made to see if the player is in a tournament and if they are the challenge should be automatically rejected. This of course excludes clan games and tournament games after round 1 (new tournament entries should be restricted also).

Originally posted by FeivelWhen a tournament starts and you have 90 games (where you move ery 3-4 days) and you then start another 100= games so your move frequency becomes every 7-14 days, there is a serious lack of respect and sportsmanship toward EVERYBODY in the tournament. Something should correct this. The timebank prevents this from happening in the future (and I suspect also pr ...[text shortened]... ames after round 1 (new tournament entries should be restricted also).

Feivel the Freethinker

Originally posted by FeivelWhen a tournament starts and you have 90 games (where you move ery 3-4 days) and you then start another 100= games so your move frequency becomes every 7-14 days, there is a serious lack of respect and sportsmanship toward EVERYBODY in the tournament.

Not true. A tournament where the timeout is 7 days is a tournament where the timeout is 7 days. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.

It would be disrespectful to deliberately slow the tournament down out of malice not because you want to play more chess.

It seems the problem is fixed now with timebanks so why create a fuss? Surely you're not suggesting changing the rules halfway through a tournament?